pm_070307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 16 Parks and Recreation Commission regarding park access; potential exchange of City land to the east of the wetland to maintain density and make financial sense of the proposed project, while ensuring access for the City park; public comment to-date during informal conversations with neighbors to the north; traffic and noise concerns; lack of support from residents for extending Mount Ridge Road to vehicular traffic; reconfiguration of parking lot and access; pedestrian access; status of Mount Ridge Road as a concept road approved by the City Council in 1986, with no right-of-way acquired and the parcel remaining unplatted with no access rights or plans at this time; rationale by staff that it would be expensive and environmentally unsound to develop a roadway through a wetland; unrealistic road alignment at this time, given subsequent Wetland Conservation Act adoption in 1991 and additional City Code restrictions regarding buffers and setbacks; and other potential access points for the park. Mr. Young sought Commissioner direction for which of the two proposals presented would be most preferred to pursue development. Mr. Young advised that they hoped to complete due diligence by early June, or lose control of the land, and were under several time constraints, thus sought quick direction from the Planning Commission and City Council as to their preference. Commissioners reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of both plans, with access off Cleveland being a point of consideration, and whether the City Council would be receptive to a land exchange. Overall, Commissioners saw advantages in both plans. Discussion included the developer’s need to poll additional neighbors for their initial reaction; additional renderings of buildings; sun/shade study and impacts over the year that would impact existing residential properties; number, placement and direction of proposed town homes; sensitivity of the issue given recent Twin Lakes Development Project history; and designation of the area as park and open space, as per zoning district, with drainage easements held by the City over the wetland in that area; private and public nature of traffic flow and perceptions of residents. Mr. Young advised that, as a developer, either option was palatable; however, noted that time involved for a land swap was of concern if numerous public hearings were required. Mr. Young noted that if land were swapped, a positive result was of direct benefit to the park itself, even though the public may have an issue. Mr. Young advised that a major amount of road activity could be blocked through effective use of trees and berming, but as a developer, he was looking for the path of least resistance. Commissioner Boerigter opined that, while there were certain advantages with each plan, securing real access to the City park seemed important and prudent. Ms. Bloom noted her concerns if higher density traffic were generated and introduced into a residential neighborhood. Ms. Bloom further noted that Cleveland was a County Road, considered as an arterial, and would create traffic flow from one major road to another major road, a much more receptive proposal. Acting Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Boerigter on both alternatives having advantages; however, noted the negative public perceptions related to potential park land swaps. Mr. Stark noted that he and Mr. Young would be having similar conversations with the City Council. Mr. Stark advised that he would have additional conversations with Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke regarding formalizing an agreement for park access with the current property owner.